From the Embers

When people think of France what comes to mind, for many it is the Eiffel tower and Notre Dame. So when Notre Dame’s roof went up in flames last week the outpouring from across the world was momentous. In our age news travels, demonstrating how interconnected we have become and the news stories that followed demonstrated the transnational age we live in. For instance, Heritage England has pledged to provide resources if needed, such as craftsmen and archaeologists demonstrating a level of international cooperation which was mirrored by the Japanese government.[1]

Interestingly, the fire at Notre Dame has also inspired help in other areas of the world, boosting the fundraising efforts for black churches in America which were destroyed by racially motivated arson attacks.[2] It seems that the plight of this internationally recognised, national monument has encouraged others to tackle the plight in their surrounding area.

In many ways Notre Dame has become a transnational symbol, causing people to acknowledge and address problems within their own country. In fact, the guardian article which discusses the pledges made by the Heritage England, uses Notre Dame as a spring board to discuss the lack of supervision within restoration work. The article quotes Michael Daley, the director of ArtWatch UK, the conservation watchdog, who highlights the many fires in UK have occurred during restoration work, such as at Windsor Castle, the Cutty Sark and the Glasgow School of Art.

However, the most notable of example of this was the social commentary on the donations from the French billionaires that poured in following the fire. Wealth inequality which was used as a staging point to discuss wealth distribution not only in the UK but also around the world.[3]

In many ways, I am increasingly coming to understand Hugh’s perspective on transnational history, at least in the modern world. With the world so interconnected as it is now, is it not the job of the historian to reflect this? Transnational history it could, therefore, be argued is simply how historian should write a good history, for as the news articles have shown us, any event can be linked to a wider theme. I’m not sure I agree with this, however I think it is an interesting talking point. Instead, for me, as I have already mentioned in previous blog posts and in seminars, transnational history has an important political dimension. Its purpose not only to explore connection within the world, but also to remind the reader that it is there and has been for hundreds of years.


[1] Dalya Alberge, Notre Dame fire: UK ready to share conservation expertise, 20 May 2019, <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/20/notre-dame-fire-uk-ready-to-share-conservation-expertise>[22 May 2019]

[2] Karen Zraick, Niraj Chokshi, Black churches destroyed by arson see huge spike in donations after Notre Dame fire, 18 April 2019, <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/black-church-fire-arson-attack-crowdfunding-notre-dame-donation-a8873576.html>[22 April 2019]

[3] Aditya Chakrabortty, The billionaires’ donations will turn Notre Dame into a monument to hypocrisy, 18 April 2019, <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/18/billionaires-donations-notre-dame-france-inequality>[22 April 2010]

Reflections on the Final Project: Expectations Versus Reality

As the semester draws to a close and we find ourselves rapidly approaching the throes of week eleven, I have the strong sense that some reflection is now in order.

And, since I have been mostly preoccupied with my project this week, many of my present thoughts relating to the module, its structure, and pedagogical reasoning will be filtered through this lens.

So what did I expect of this module, its expectations, and the looming 5000-word essay component at the beginning of the course? To put it bluntly, not much short of disaster, though from about the second week on the course, when we sat and discussed habits and routines, I found that I was already far more optimistic, even enthused about the prospect, and both considerably more than I had expected!

With a few ideas in my head and not a single clue how achievable any of them might be as a project, the next couple of weeks were spent dutifully zooming in and out of various topics and histories, until I had finally settled on my object of study and the questions which I hoped to answer over the course of the next few weeks, not yet knowing quite where they would take me.

A first revelation on this journey was the issue of sites. My initial proposal, although clear in its emphasis on select transnational actors, I realised was not quite as methodologically watertight as I had thought, moving between a few sites which I had identified in early readings but failed to justify in other ways: why include those sites specifically? why include certain places but not others?

This is something which I believe I have now resolved by way of tracing East India Company voyages within a more specific time period and by emphasising useful or interesting examples rather than committing myself to a few random sites from the outset. Yet as well as a personal challenge, this is also a good example of one of the ways that I expect we have all been challenged by this module: that is, it has encouraged us to think not only in terms of transnational phenomena, but transnational methodologies.

Maybe I’ve just gone a little bit mad at this point, but I have to admit that this particular aspect of the tutorial readings has really grown on me over the course of the semester, so I am glad I have managed to ‘unmake’ this particular assumption and remake the setting for my project around the history itself rather than the other way around.

Fast forward a few more weeks and we arrive at my second revelation: this one a little more light-hearted. For although I suppose it should have been obvious — get this, folks — the more time you have to do your research, the more research you are going to wind up with!

I am sure I am not the only one who is still Ctrl-F, Ctrl+B, and Ctrl+Xing their way through an unruly notes document or three, even as the structure of our arguments should now be finally taking shape. So, although it is rather comical, I feel like this is a stage that I probably underestimated, given that it is something that I would usually do alongside and during rather than ahead of the writing process for a shorter essay.

So, my final advice to next year’s cohort: remember that the more notes you take, the more you’re going to have to work with later, but also the more you’re going to have to work against if you’re not careful. Keep your note-taking focused or, if that’s not your style, be prepared to spend a lot of time chopping and changing afterwards.

And, if you value your sanity: always, always note down the page number.

Transnational History – reaching the public?

A comment made by Sophie towards the end our last tutorial regarding transnational history’s restricted engagement with the public got me thinking more about the current divides and how it could be better bridged. In particular, I began wondering why I myself did not know much about transnational history before this semester (aside from my own ignorance), and how this promising new field could expand its reach to other historians and to the public; and indeed, if it should.

In the case of the reach of transnational history academically, as usual, the nation has some part to play. The undergraduate history departments in most universities understandably have a large proportion of their teaching and modules centred around traditional nation-state frameworks. This is understandable for a discipline whose inception was practically tied to the institutions of the nation-state and whose readership was intentionally national.

But just as the wheels of history keep moving along so should the approaches used to study it evolve and adapt somewhat over time. I think there is certainly much rationale for introducing transnational as well as global and world histories into the historical curriculum at an earlier stage. This could then help to avoid the initial (and sometimes prolonged) disorientation you feel after you step into your first MO3351 tutorial and your nation-centred world starts crumbling all around you.

In terms of its wider reach within the public sphere transnational history does risk suffering some of the same problems that the academic writing of history generally does when trying to engage with a readership beyond the lecture hall and seminar room. One of the most notable of these is the overuse of jargon or at least very long, drawn out complex sentences which seek to fit in too many aspects and arguments into one idea or expression, and often go off on tangents, such that they risk losing the intended meaning they started off with – much like this sentence is currently demonstrating. Increasing clarity of expression and only using jargon where it necessarily aids the meaning and understanding of a concept (and is fully explained in laymen’s terms) is a particularly important consideration to bear in mind for historians of a new, evolving field like transnational history.

Yet in terms of subjects studied and context there is a potential widespread appeal to transnational history that seems unrealised. Within the diverse and multicultural historical episodes which transnational historians bring to life, from Tonio Andrade’s ‘Chinese Farmer, Two African boys and a warlord’ and Linda Colley’s Ordeal of Elizabeth Marsh to broader event-based accounts like Heather Streets-Salter’s article, ‘“The Local Was Global: The Singapore Mutiny of 1915”, there is an underlying sense that you are reading a completely new angle on a previously well-documented event or being exposed to new accounts of people lives which were previously unwritten about.

In fact, in terms of method, a focus on local histories can often facilitate a direct engagement between the transnational historian and the public. This is especially relevant in the case of historians accessing family records and memorabilia as sources and aiming to sensitively and accurately portray personal relationships and stories. We saw a clear example of this in the Transnational Lives edited volume and Martha Hodes’ account of the sea captain’s wife Eunice Connolly. In discussing her search for sources, Hodes mentions how lucky she was to meet descendants of Smiley Connolly’s West Indian family in New York and New England as well as Eunice’s New England family. This enabled her to follow a more personal take on Eunice’s story and helped form her argument regarding the malleability of racial classifications across geographical borders in North and Central America in the latter 19th century.  

There is no denying the complexity of transnational history, and many would argue that’s the fun of it, yet that does not mean it cannot engage with a public looking to explore a growing interest in history. Arguably, as well, it should; given its current relevance in a globalised era but even more so given that it’s simply interesting, status-quo challenging history. The difficulty lies essentially in taking complex transnational phenomena, often subject to various origins and influences, and expressing their significance in a simple, yet engaging way. Fair to say its easier said than done.

Reflection Post

Looking back at this module over the course of the semester, I have gained incredible knowledge and a new understanding of history as a discipline. I was never interested in medieval or ancient history, always wanting the material I was learning to be relevant to my life and future aspirations. This class as well as HI2001 are some of the only history classes I actually felt have pushed me as a student, making me reconsider the discipline of history. By focusing on not just the act of studying history, but how to practice history, the doing, I have been inspired by the various methods and tools that I had not even considered to be historical. From looking at the concept of a “transnational actor”, seeing how people’s’ lives can span across borders, the topic of transnational history was made relevant to me, and kept creeping into my mind as I read books, articles, or even watched student run fashion shows.

The discussion of what counts and what does not count as transnational has inspired me and pushed me to critically analyse historical papers in ways I never had before. Additionally, I really enjoyed the loose structure of tutorials, with lots of freedom for seminar based discussion. It was one of the only classes I have had where students are not afraid to speak, but encouraged. I listened to my classmates takes on papers and concepts and really felt everyone contributed something unique.

Personally, I think this class has really pushed me specifically in the realm of the assignments. While I have had to write 5000 words essays before, I have never had to do a 5000 word project. Reading example project proposals, spending an embarrassing two hours coding a graphic to put into my project, and attempting to do math to calculate the budget of my project, I have been tasked with doing things I have never done before. Though this project was/is scary, I really have enjoyed it. My parents always say if school is easy, you are doing something wrong, so I think I have been faced with just the right dose of a challenge. From translating a 30 page Spanish interview (rest in peace my Friday night), to trying to decide whether it is worth it to fill out an ethics form, submit it, then possibly not even be able to use the names of the EU reps, I have been frustrated, challenged, tested, but consistently determined to come out on top.

In many ways, this class has been a great asset to future projects I will undertake whether that be my long essay for my special subject, or even the tedious process of getting access to certain documents (a challenge I know I will face as a pre-law student). I have also realised my Spanish is a lot better than I thought but I am not eager to go round two on translating an entire document so please no one enlist me for help.

Thus in conclusion, I have come a long way from the girl who argued with Kai saying this class was called Transglobalism. With this newly established transnational framework, I am prepared to read history with a more delicate eye, really analysing how different actors, concepts and people span across borders, creating a network of connections or a honeycomb (throwing it back to Clavin). This class has proved not only interesting and exciting but also extremely helpful for future history classes as well as making quick connections and recognising existing transnational ties.

A Field Guide to Transnational History

Listing the key terms of transnational history in class helped me to visualise the vast array of components involved in its historiography. From “nodal points” to “NGOs” it seemed daunting to pin down a small number of categories that could encompass the entirety of transnational history. Looking at that board and attempting to fit each component into a coherent, comprehensive yet well organised book seemed to be the equivalent of finding a solution to an unsolvable equation. Amongst our group, questions abounded. What themes/categories can encompass everything we’ve listed on the board? How do we organise the book in a manner that would make sense to students like us who are relatively new to the historiographical approach of transnational history? Finally, how do we incorporate transnational history’s most important literature while also making note of the recent debates between scholars regarding transnational history as an emerging and prevalent historiographical approach? We weren’t able to come up with well-formulated answers for these questions but we began to attempt to answer them by taking the components and categorising them.

Our rough layout of the transnational history reader consisted of (if I remember correctly) four broad categories that most – if not all – the components could fit under as well as a section dedicated to the challenges and historiographical debates associated with transnational history. The first category would be themes or key ideas, the second networks, the third actors and the fourth nodal points and confluence.

Themes [ italic font makes the ideas seem more legitimate], the first section of our hypothetical book, involves the grand topics, key ideas and terms often discussed in transnational history. We would highlight the terms sub-altern, translocal, transcultural, globalisation, and internationalism. Each of these terms would be defined and set in the context of their relevance to transnationalism. Sub-altern studies, while related to nationalism and de-colonisation, helped to create a diaspora of anti-colonialism across the globe.

The section Networks entails a discussion of the bridges that breakdown national barriers. Commercial ties, language, religion, ethnicity and political philosophies all fit into this category. Transnational networks are based up some form of commonality or common interest and therefore necessary in any discussion of transnational history. The common connections in transnational networks could be as seemingly insignificant as the meat essence OXO, which Jan Ruger addressed.

Actors is arguably the most straightforward section. The aim of Actors would be to discuss the most important actors and agents in transnational history. The great empires of the late modern period were chief sources for cross-cultural interaction from the 17th century until the years following World War II.  Supranational organisations such as the League of Nations, the United Nations and the European Union are the most prominent modern examples of transnational actors.

Nodal Points and Confluence comprises of physical points of connection. Ironically the most obvious point of confluence are national borders themselves, particularly when they are tenuous and not enforced by some physical or man-made barrier. Other, modern examples of nodal points or areas of confluence are social media platforms like twitter or Facebook. Entertainment events like the Olympics, World Cup, or Cannes Film Festival could be considered transnational nodal points. In my project research, I am finding that port cities like Canton, Calcutta and Istanbul were hotbeds of commercial transnational interaction.

            I realise that I have simply created categories for topics that transnational history encompasses and there is a considerable amount I have left out that is essential to transnational history as a field of study. Methodological strategies are crucial to any historiographical approach and certainly should be included in any transnational history handbook. The limits of transnational history, while still speculated upon by historians, would be another important area of discussion. As an exercise, this forced me to think about what was fundamentally important to studying transnational history.

I may have it all wrong…

Defining something that lacks a specific definition is always going to be difficult. I need only need to look to my blog post last week and Jamie’s comments underneath to find evidence of this. Casalilla perspective that any historians have the ‘right to use the methods of transnational history’ is interesting and something I agree with. Transnational has re-emphasised the importance of the movement and connection. However, this only reflects one half of the words meaning. The reference to the nation makes the subject area more apparent, transnationalism focuses on the interaction of peoples between national boundaries.

I will admit that this is a simplistic overview, as was established in class week there are a plethora of subsections within the field. For example, interaction, the movement between borders can cover a broad range of topics in a multitude of different ways. The reading so far this semester have largely focused on peoples and yet transnationalism can also be applied to commodities and the growth of networks. It can, therefore, be argued that the engulfing field which is transnational history requires one simplistic overarching definition to tie the field together. Now I am not claiming to the perfect answer to this, however, if I was to attempt it in a sentence I would state that:

Transnational history is the study of a subject’s interaction and or movement across national boundaries.

I think many will argue against this, stating it misses the nuances of transnationalism, and on one hand people are right. Yet, as a firm believer in the practicality of history, transnationalism needs to be definable in an easily understandable format if it is to have any impact on popular history. Something that I believe to be imperative in a world which seems to growing apart, for people need to understand that the world has been built upon interaction and engagement rather than the story told by isolationist national narratives.

Transnational history web

I’ll admit I totally forgot we were supposed to write about what we’d want to see in a guide book about transnational history, so I wrote a rather lengthy unrelated post earlier today.

My ideal guide to transnational history would not go in a specific order rather it would be a collection of articles on various ideas from trade history in transnational context to the study of intellectual networks. I think this network should be ever expanding, but that each article should have a fairly strict word limit, with the option of adding articles on subtopics that might be of more niche interest. Ideally additions to this web would be peer reviewed and there would be a paid staff to prune and nurture the network.

I also think a short history of the discipline would a beneficial thing to include. I found thinking about the history of transnational and global women’s history to be beneficial when trying to understand the historiography. A similar more general history of the discipline of transnational and global history would also be helpful.

Finally I’d like to make the case for visuals. Personally I think mostly in words, but that is mainly when things are proceeding in a one directional linear way. Concepts in transnational history often are not linear or don’t have a linear relationship towards each other. This is where I think visuals can be very helpful. In addition visuals can be very helpful in remembering complex topics and adding a bit of levity to what can sometimes be dry historiography. This is what I tried to do in my previous post “Trying to do historiography with Polandball” (http://transnationalhistory.net/doing/2019/03/13/trying-to-do-historiography-with-polandball/).

A Transnational Index of A (nonexistent) Transnational Manifesto

Given the already-complex nature of this topic, I think it’s best if I don’t spend loads of time justifying and explaining up-front why I’ve set this out like I have. Instead, I’ll explain the terms and categories as I go along!

Meta-Transnationalist Terms: These are the terms and definitions used by academics when describing the whole of or an aspect of transnationalism and transnational history. Under this category you will find ‘Subaltern Studies’, ‘Labour History’, ‘Core-Periphery’, and different interpretations of exactly what ‘Transnationalism’ means. Subcategories for Historiography, Methodology, etc. might also be useful but as of now I am unsure of how to split things up.

“Umbrellas”: These are those networks and organizations that are so large and/or diverse that within them can be found multiple examples of each of the following categories. They therefore cannot be grouped into any specific one and must be dealt with on their own terms. They can be further subdivided into purpose-built (wherin their central purpose is at least in part transnational in character) networks/organizations and diffuse networks/organizations that have developed a transnational character without direct intent on the part of any (or at least most) Actors within it. Included in the latter is the Internet and the New York Stock Exchange, while in the former lies the UN (and its subsidiary organizations), the Socialist International, and the World Trade Organization. A third sub-category might be set aside for Empires, as has been suggested by others, as a consequence of their particular historical significance.

Actors: Specific persons or organizations responsible for transnational activity. These can be subdivided into Practicing Actors and Lived Actors. Practicing Actors are those people/organizations that consciously and intentionally engage in transnational activity; in this sub-category are many scientists, diplomats, politicians, revolutionaries, etc, and their associated institutions. Lived Actors are those people/organizations who have had transnational activity impact their life but did not have direct knowledge or control over the transnational aspects of it, or those who participated in transnational activity without considering themselves as doing so. Included here are many traders, generals, soldiers, prisoners, and “common people” more generally.

Objects: What is actually being transferred across borders. This includes physical objects in the form of traded commodities, as well as non-commodities such as scientific knowledge, culture, disease, and even genetics.

Vectors: The constructed methods and “natural” pathways that enable and accelerate transnational activity. The former includes specific trade networks, diplomatic treaties, and Esperanto. The latter includes religious affiliation, cultural compatibility, global and regional economic phenomena (ex. industrial revolution), and geographic features (ex. good harbors).

Blockers: The constructed methods and pre-existing conditions blocking or impeding transnational activity. The former group includes hard borders, geo-political rivalries, and xenophobic ideologies. The latter group includes geographic impediments (sheer distance, the Atlantic, the Sahara, etc), linguistic barriers, and, again, global and regional economic phenomena.

Similar distinctions in broad categories have been made by others, both on the blog and in the last class, but I think I’ve hit on something that ought to be taken into strong consideration when planning out a broader and more ambitious “manifesto”. Specifically, I think it is extremely important, within categories, to distinguish between active and passive aspects of transnationalism. There is a fundamental difference between a 1950’s UN diplomat and a 1890’s Hong Kong peasant that is not merely a function of their different living conditions and historical circumstances. People and organizations practice transnational activity very differently when they are aware of the transnational character of that activity, and act even more differently when they are intentionally conducting that activity to be transnational. This is true across all the categories I have listed above. Diffuse trade networks operate(d) differently than the World Trade Organization, disease transmission operates differently than knowledge transmission, and constructed barriers to certain types of transnational activities (militarized borders) operate differently than more natural ones (many miles of ocean). Taking a closer look at the last example, it is clear that from the perspective of a scholar, the transnational character of a deliberately militarized border resulting from particular cultural and political developments has to be established via a fundamentally different lens than how a scholar would evaluate the transnational character of a naturally existing water barrier that forces dangerous raft crossings.

Who the heck is Baffo?

I’m having an identity problem, fortunately this isn’t one of those identity problems that pops up so often in transnational history regarding culture and nationality. I literally can’t tell who a name belongs to. The name Baffo seems to be used to describe two different Ottoman Valide Sultans, Nurbanu and Sayife. Nurbanu was the mother of Murad III and Sayife was his consort. So in less we want to get aggressively freudian (sorry psych student humour) these historical figures must be kept separate. It is also important to note that they were very frequently at odds viciously competing for influence over Murad.

Most sources describe Nurbanu as having some personal connection to Venice dating back to her childhood. The nature of the connection is itself ambiguous. According to some sources she was born to commoners of Venetian controlled Corfu, and merely liked to position herself as the illegitimate child of Venetian nobles. Other sources describe her as the child of the Venetian governor of Paros and the Cyclades. These sources describe her as the descendent of the Vernier-Baffo family which suggests that she is the most likely candidate for the name of Baffo. Nurbanu herself played up a connection to Venice and a noble origin, but was unspecific about what family she descended from.

However someone who based on biographical details is quite clearly Sayife is often also described as Baffo. However while sources about Nurbanu will often also say Baffo the same is not true of sources about Sayife. It is also worth noting that these sources often describe Baffo as Venetian, but no source that refers to Murad’s consort as Sayife refers to her as Venetian.

I’m inclined to believe that the name Baffo should best be applied to Nurbanu or not applied at all, but my real question is does that mean I should disregard sources where it refers instead to Sayife? Most of sources where Sayife is referred to as Baffo don’t have obvious errors except in mixing up her origins with those of Nurbanu. Some of these sources contain details that might be useful, can I still use them if they include what I believe is an error?

Interestingly I’m having a similar problem with their kiras (Jewish women who served as a personal secretary/chief of staff/personal shopper). Some historians question wether the word “kira” even describes the role, or is actually just the shortening of on of the kira’s names. I’m inclined to use the word kira anyway because there is not another good word for describing that role. In addition there were three prominent kiras around the time of Nurbanu and Sayife and there is a problematic tendency for them to get mixed up together or even combined into one person. One historian cleverly points out that Nurbanu and Sayife would not have used the same kira as they were nearly constantly at odds. This combined with the fact that we know some biographical details about each of these kiras makes me fairly sure there wasn’t just one. However there is some ambiguity still about which events happened to which. For example one of them was infamously stabbed to death and it has taken better historians than me a fair amount of detective work to figure out which one that is.

Handbook

List – Technical Terms (Learning the Language) 

  1. Introduction: Transnational History, History and Historiography. 
  2. Heterogeneity, Confusions and Misunderstandings.     
  3. Aims, Agendas and Aspirations.   
  4. Methodological Approaches.  
  5. Source Materials.
  6. Spaces and Times. 
  7. Mapping and Visual Aids. 
  8. Conclusion. 

Reference Works and Further Readings

At the start of the semester, I was, and still am to some degree, slightly baffled by the complex of technical terms which can be quite specific to transnational history (‘nodes’, ‘translocal’, ‘glocal’ etc.). If I was to compile a book on the subject then, I think it might be handy to include a list of those expressions, accompanied by brief explanations of them at the start of the work.

I think it’s important to situate transnational history in its historiographical context too (its emergence, its comparison to other sub-disciplines of history, and how it has changed since in its character since its inception); and I think would give me reason to address those topics in the first chapter of the book. 

In the second, it might then be helpful to confront or work around the various confusions that present themselves in the practice of writing transnational history; its heterogeneity as a discipline, its flexibility as an ‘umbrella perspective’, and the way in which it functions as a ‘tool’ rather than a strict methodological approach. In this instance, it might also be useful to include the criticisms that have been levied against it in the past. 

The third and fourth are quite self-explanatory, and could address why historians have chosen to practice transnational history, break down its various sub-disciplines, and perhaps match those sub-disciplines to the areas of historical enquiry that have benefitted most from them in the past (‘translocal’ for inter-colonial spaces for example, or ‘microhistory’ for cities etc.).

‘Source Materials’, I think, should receive some serious attention. For me, using primary source materials to write transnational history has been challenging, and I’m still unsure as to how I should be reading a source through a transnational ‘lens’, whether or not there in fact is a specific way to do so, and how I should deal with a scarcity in source material (the validity of the Andrade approach for example, or something entirely different). 

The issue of space and time is something I’ve blogged about before, specifically with reference to the spatio-temporal problem of ‘transnational’ history before the rise of the nation-sate, and legitimacy of ‘transnational’ history for places in which social organization was not manifested with reference to European frameworks of Westphalian sovereignty. In this chapter, I think it might be wise to address those issues, and offer some ways in which they might be overcome (via the practice of ‘translocal’ history for example). 

Unfortunately, I missed the QGIS sessions, but skills like the ones taught there, I hear, have been very useful: it’s for that reason that I would devote the seventh chapter of the book to mapping.              

Game of thrones, A Transnational Phenomenon. (spoiler free)

Last night I made the questionable decision to stay up to watch the premier of series six of Game of Thrones live, despite its timing of 2:00 in the morning. However it was a fantastic watch to explosively start the new season and I regret nothing! Whilst the show itself sees characters cross borders and cultures and crosses the globe for filming locations, after watching it occurred to me how many other people around the world would have been seeing this episode at exactly the same time revelling in the same plot points and set pieces. Season seven’s premier garnered an enormous ten million, nearly double the population beyond the wall (Scotland) and it can be assumed that season eight’s viewer base will only increase in number. With viewer ratings this large, it can be safely argued that Game of Thrones has passed from a tv show into being something of an international cultural phenomenon. It may have been my sleep deprived mind overelaborating but I couldn’t help but feel connected to everyone across the world who was watching at the same time. When I was looking back through previous projects as well, I saw that a previous student of the module had based their project off the international permeation of Disney. I found it interesting to contemplate how mundane and small transnational linkages can apparently be. Although Game of Thrones as a fantasy adventure series is unlikely to have a massive impact or ramifications, it is undoubtedly true that other internationally watched forms of media may do. What message does it send that the FIFA World Cup has been held consecutively in Russia and Qatar two states with infamously poor records on LGBTQ and in Qatar’s case women’s rights? Similarly Aaron Sorkin’s The West Wing, which at its peak had seventeen million viewers used its platform to preach a liberal centrist philosophy of government. It is noticeable that much of the occurrences on The West Wing presaged actual events, with the show seeing the placement of a Latino Supreme Court judge nine years before Obama followed suit. All this amounts to the conclusion that with such an internationally broad viewer base, whilst it might not be the job of shows such as Game of Thrones to proselytise positive values and equality, many media executives would do well to remember the powerful transnational platform upon which they operate and the messages which they choose to spread from this foundation.

A Manifesto on a Book about Transnational History

As I was talking to Sophie and Nick in class this week, I was relieved to find out that I was not the only one who gets excited about a beautiful contents page. I realised this as we were describing our ‘dream transnational history students’ handbook’, and we all started to get very worked up about index pages, chapter introductions and comprehensive further reading lists. You know you’re speaking to a history student when someone says, “It makes my day when I pick up a book and the chapters themselves are categorised and organised by theme”. In our group, we got so into the idea of being able to organise the structure of the contents page that in the end there was very little content actually in it in terms of what themes we actually wanted to see there.  

In light of this, I’ve had a think about what I personally would like to see in the Isabella West edition of a Transnational History Students Handbook and this is what I’ve come up with. 

But first, I’ll break down the structure of the book. 

As well as an introduction and conclusion, the book would consist of 4 (or more – these are just my ideas) chapters organised around themes. Within these chapters there would be a short introduction with some key words and discussions, followed by a very thorough reading list and 3-4 articles as examples of the concepts raised above. After every article there would of course be another reading list because who doesn’t love a good reading list.

Below, are just a few points I think would be interesting to consider in the introductions of each chapter. 

INTRODUCTION

  • Give transnational history a definition! By a definition, I do not mean the definitive definition, but one that can get students excited about what this approach entails. A Clavin-style discussion as to its ambiguity can come after, but before this you need to give the term some scope and meaning. In my mind, this book is targeted at our previous selves some 10 weeks ago, and I know that 10 week ago me would have appreciated a little bit of clarity just to get me thinking about the possibilities this kind of history holds. 
  • Context! As a relatively recent concept, it would also be great to know where transnational history is situated within wider historiography: how it emerged, where it emerged, what it emerged out of etc.   
  • Key debates! A quick discussion regarding the most relevant discussions occurring in the field at the moment would follow but only as an introduction to the rest of the chapters. 
  • Reading List! This handbook is only a guide that would serve as a springboard to students’ further reading so this reading list would be a critical aspect of every chapter.  
  1. THE NATION: Do we stress the trans or the national? 

This was actually the only topic Sophie, Nick and I got to talk about, which probably says something about its significance in our minds. Under this topic I would like to see how the nation fits into but also challenges transnational concepts and approaches. This could borrow from and include aspects of the OXO article and AHR conversation, which highlights the tensions and opportunities of deviating from traditional national narratives.  

Example of article: Perhaps the most relevant article I can think of at the moment might just be Zoe’s future essay on European identity as an example exploring national identities within supra-national organisations 

2. EMPIRE

The majority of the topics we have chosen involve the concept of empires in one capacity or another so it’s clear that there is a wealth of material here to choose from in terms of themes. I personally would enjoy sections on non-human actors such as disease or commodities, subaltern migration and mobility, trans-imperial networks and decolonisation theory and the reciprocal influence it has had on transnational history but I’m aware these are just topics that I find particularly interesting. 

Example: Curless’s The Triumph of the State demonstrating the advantages and limitations transnational history has created in examining the emphasis, or over-emphasis of inter-territorial networks. 

3. ACTORS

This chapter could certainly be taken in a variety of directions. However, I think this could be a good place to look at approaching transnational sources. Inspired by the reading on biographies, it would be interesting to consider how studying transnational actors could encourage historians to place more emphasis on the lived experiences of actors in history. Though I remember there being speculation in class about blurring the lines between ‘fantasy’ and ‘reality’, this section could perhaps take a creative approach in examining transnational actors, whether it’s through novel approaches such as GIS or maybe even delving into historical fiction 

Example: Despite the controversy this caused, I would choose the Andrade article to most effectively demonstrate the possibilities transnational history could yield.

4. SCALE

Here, the Saunier article would serve as a basis for the key debates and issues raised since it generated so much debate when we discussed it in class. The issue of bridging local, regional, national and global scales without regarding them in any sort of hierarchy was of particular interest to me. To address this, the chapter should look at micro- and global- histories independently and then provide an example that links the two together.  

Example: Saunier, Pierre-Yves. Transnational History. Theory and History. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. 

The Question of Cynicism and Honesty in Transnational History

Precisely determining whether a historical figure’s words are accurate in content and honest in intention is not always possible when studying and writing history. Ancient historians in particular must often make carefully considered value judgments on whether to trust, say, Procopius in his description of Emperor Justinian. Procopius is a clearly biased source (towards the Emperor during his time as his official historian, and against in his Secret History, written later), but he must be dealt with and used somehow due to the relative lack of other contemporaneous sources for the time period and places he describes. Moving closer to the present day, some of the same problems around authorial intent disappear, but most remain, and a few new problems unique to modern history arise.

Modern historians, unlike ancient historians, usually do not have to deal with the question of whether a person existed or whether an event actually occurred. The invention of the printing press and the spread of literacy from the beginning of the modern era meant that most important events and persons have independent verification from different contemporaneous sources. However, this explosion of documentation in some respects makes the problem of authorial honesty and intent more difficult to address. In the late modern period especially, actors, and particularly transnational actors, are increasingly aware that their words will be read and listened to not just by the intended audience, but also by unintended and sometimes hostile audiences as well. More than ever, politicians, ideologues, and intellectuals have a motive to disguise, embellish, and sometimes outright lie about their beliefs and goals. 

This is something that I have to come to terms with when researching and writing my project. Because I am trying to determine, fundamentally, the ideological legitimacy of the post-WW1 Internationals, the question of bias has to be taken head on. The issue is that both sides (pro- and anti- on the position of whether the post-war colonial policy of the social-democratic Internationals is derived from that of the pre-war International) accuse the other of acting in bad faith. On the extreme ends, authors like Frantz Fanon accused the Labour and Socialist International of being a purely cynical vehicle for the maintenance of neocolonialism, while French Prime Minister Guy Mollet, among others, accused Algerian nationalists of using the “red drapery of socialism” as cover for their war crimes and human rights abuses. A more mundane example would be Labour Prime Minister Ramsay Macdonald speaking of Labour’s “commitment to our common cause” in private letters to Indian socialists while disavowing any dual loyalty to anything but King and Country when questioned in Parliament.

This sort of rhetorical ping-pong and double-speak is endemic in my primary sources dating from the mid-20th century. Parsing through the sometimes contradictory statements of politicians is difficult, but I am not, thankfully, finding the task impossible. Actions speak louder than words, and in the case of active politicians and public figures, it is relatively easy to trace links between particular statements and policies that do or do not follow those statements. Somewhat more difficult to deal with are intellectuals who were not put under the same pressure to “put up or shut up”, if you will. Confirming the depth of commitment to a particular pro- or anti- colonialist platform in those cases requires more work.

            I’d be interested to hear if this issue of self-conscious bias or misrepresentation has come up for other people conducting projects in the late modern period? If so, what strategies and methods have you come up with or come across to help deal with it?

Transnational Manifesto

This week in class we were asked to brainstorm how we would construct a transnational handbook. After a short five minutes, we soon found there seemed an endless list of terms and concepts that could fall under the historical discipline of transnationalism. Reflecting back on the readings and discussion we have had this semester, I would argue there is no consensus on what exactly constitutes as transnational history. However, I do not find this problematic. Though I am a stickler for clean and concise definitions, I do not think anything is added but “straight jacketing” the term transnational to the confines of a set definition.  By leaving the discipline up for interpretation, transnationalism is allowed legs, raising the subject as starting point for larger conversations regarding migration, identity, and cross border initiatives. While I have already listed three areas of exploration that come as symptomatic subsections of transnational history, this is merely a truncated list of the larger implications transnationalism could have on other fields of study.

With this in mind, I would construct a “manifesto” or historical handbook of transnational history as such:

  1. Include a vague meaning of transnational: a cross border initiative. I would then continue highlighting all the ways this can be done such as studying transnational actors, movements, or ideas. Next, In this same section I would outline some of the disagreements within the field, showing where historians disagree on the current definition and future of transnational history.
  2. I would define transnational actors, giving a rough overview of what transnational actors are, and what role they play in cross border initiatives. I would make sure to include examples from all periods of history, from merchants in the early modern period to European Parliament members in 2019.
  3. Next, I would go on to discuss transnational commodities such as ideas, human rights movements, and political ideologies. For example, there could be a transnational history conducted on the breath of Communism globally in the 1900s. Additionally, there could be a transnational history done on the assembly line and its global impact. It is important to include this section to show that not only people and nations can be transnational, but commodities and ideas count as well.
  4. It is also important to acknowledge how to measure transnational history, referencing a global, local or even “glocal” approach. Here I would include a few articles as examples and a testament of how differently historians categorise transnationalism through the use of scales/measures.
  5. I would also include a section on transnational organisations. Organisations such as the EU are sometimes thought of as international or supranational but very rarely referred to as transnational. In other words, most people know what the EU is but not what transnational organisations are.  If the EU was introduced as a transnational organisation, showing how its policies and legislation affect citizens and nations across borders and EU member states, then the general public might gain a greater appreciation and understanding for “transnationalism.” For example, many European understand that they are EU citizens and that the EU somehow regulates their national government, however they might not understand why this is transnational. By introducing it as a transnational, a foundation is laid to make further connections between international and supranational organisation to the discipline of transnational history.

Lastly, I would include a list of the top ten leading historians practicing transnational history. By citing a collection of each historian’s articles, showing how the studies vary from each other, the true magnitude of the discipline can be felt. This will drive home the point that transnational history is ever changing, cutting edge, and widespread. It is not a concept easily defined or caged into a specific category.

“Speaking of Family…” : The Powers that were, or, a difficult family history

(Please excuse my delay in posting this week: I was called into work unexpectedly today, otherwise this would have been published for the noon deadline.)

When I was a child, I remember always, always wanting to know more about my family.

From the time I was primary school to perhaps the age of sixteen, I was repeatedly astonished to find that so many of my friends and classmates often could not even recall the their grandparents’ names, let alone details of their lives, what they had done, who they had known, or where they had been.

I suspect that my own interest in these questions very likely grew out of the fact that for most of my life, most of that family seemed to live fantastically far away. Most of them, my father’s many, many siblings, had scattered within the last thirty or forty years, chasing opportunities for work or simply the hope of a better life. I remember counting off the places to my two closest primary school friends:

Australia, Ghana, New Zealand, Los Angeles.

In theory, I had even visited two of them, in better days, long before I could actually remember them. But really, they were more like words to me than actual places, more imagination than tangible reality.

Yet even much closer to home, in some of my more enduring memories of my family, it is possible for me to trace a continuing fascination with place: that peculiar mix of connection and disconnection, of familiar and exotic, and always the questions of where? how far? what is it like?

Between occasional trips to see my grandparents and the regular reminiscences of my own mum and dad, it happened that from an early age, ‘Up North’ was cemented in my mind as not so much a relative term as a defined place on the map, beginning somewhere in Sheffield and mysteriously melting away at the Scottish Borders.

By the age of five or six, I had learned to recognise the final stretch of the journey to my Nana and Granddad’s house by the glowing ‘57’ sign of the Heinz factory off the M6 motorway, the red lights of the mast on Winter Hill, even by the peculiar shape of the street lamps: neither lantern-shaped nor the usual upside-down Ls, but plastic-y looking squares with rounded corners, looking down and guiding us to our destination.

By the age of seven or eight, I could name every service station that we would pass on the route. The perennial ‘are we there yet?’ of earlier journeys was transformed into a continual live update on our progress. And for years after, when I looked at a map (and I looked at maps a lot), my distances were measured not by the given scale at the foot of the page, but by the sacred knowledge that it was 200 miles from Reading to Wigan on the M6 motorway.

But while Wigan, at least within the walls of our grandparents’ house, seemed like a sort of second home, my grandmother’s adopted home in Leeds felt like another country entirely: a greyscale jungle of high-rise flats and pebbledash houses connected by a sprawling delta of roundabouts and dual carriageways. Then, at the centre of it all, the rows and rows of red-brick houses where my Mum arrived ‘home’ for the very first time at the age of twelve when her father came out of the British Army.

My mother’s side of the family, nominally the Powers after her father, was ever the more difficult case when it came to my questioning. Certainly, their history was the more intriguing, boasting a veritable treasure trove of transnational connections and experiences.

These came to me first through the story of my mother’s life. Born in the British military hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (then the Federation of Malaya) in 1957, my mum’s early childhood was revealed to me in glimpses, through other people’s memories and flickering video footage:

A frowning baby in the arms of my grandmother. The young Malay woman who worked as a housekeeper for the family, whose name is half-remembered, the spelling unknown, who might well be still alive. A tropical storm which sent a bolt of lightning crashing through the entrance of their home, along a central corridor, and miraculously out the other side.

Three years later, when her father was posted to Monchengladbach, near Düsseldorf, Germany, and the scene changes yet again:

A house in an army compound on the site of a former psychiatric hospital (then more properly known as an asylum), still partly visible on Google Earth. Primary school with the British Forces Education System. My mother’s parents, each the leader of a Scout pack. Her mother, a Scot, who spoke German ‘as well as the Dutch’. My own mother, whose snippets of German were just sufficient to scrounge sweets and biscuits from the cleaners before running off to cause mischief.

She was not the only one who returned to an unfamiliar home nine years later, in the winter of 1969.

For my grandmother, at least, the decision had been a tactical one: not wishing to return to her own family troubles in either Scotland or to their offshoots in South of England, their settling in Leeds was a deliberate act of avoidance, much more her choice than it was her husband’s.

For my grandfather, the ‘return’ to England was even more dubious. For although he had served in the British Army for over twenty years, Richard Power spoke of himself first and foremost as an Irishman and a Catholic, though he had nominally rescinded his faith in order to marry my grandmother (who belonged to the Church of Scotland) shortly after the end of the Second World War.

And beyond the matter of his identity within the British Isles – or the ‘Atlantic Archipelago’ as it has more recently and properly been known – there is the issue of his actual life.

For Richard Power was not born in Ireland, and nor did he ever actually live there. After the war, when we know that he served for a year or less in Africa, but little else, he spent a short period of time in Scotland and then in Germany, during which he met and married my grandmother. Two children and two postings later, to Singapore and Malaya respectively, and we are caught up with his story.

But the true crux of the matter was that my grandfather’s family had not lived in Britain or Ireland for a whole five generations, following the emigration of his own great-great-grandfather to India, probably to the port of Madras, at some point in the 1830s or 40s. His second son, an engineer in various parts of India and husband to three consecutive wives, had twelve children in all, although we know that at least four perished during infancy or early childhood.

Of the surviving children, the eldest, Charles John Power, would come to hold the position of Deputy Superintendent of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Bombay Police by at least 1910. Yet after 1911, we know that he most likely fell into a state of disgrace, following his failure to prevent the escape of a notable Indian political prisoner from the RMS Morea, who had been bound for trial and probable imprisonment in his— dare I say their? —home country.

The transnational reach of the Power family would nonetheless expand yet again through lives of his children. Of the four, two of his daughters were to make the strange journey ‘home’ to England while the youngest would eventually emigrate to Brisbane, Australia. His only son, Terence Charles Power, would be buried on European soil only after perishing en route to a German prisoner-of-war camp during the Second World War; his own son, my own grandfather, would face the terrors of that conflict in Africa not long afterwards.

And then we come to 1969. A husband and wife arrive at a place they call home with five children in tow. My grandfather, whose age, apparent foreignness, and unusual qualifications made it difficult for him to secure a job despite countless applications and interviews. My grandmother, for whom the loss of security and structure provided by the army meant a steady decline into drink, depression, and eventually a divorce from her husband. Five children, who were bullied relentlessly for their use of Queen’s English and who, within a year, were speaking as if their family had descended from five generations in West Yorkshire rather than five generations in British India. These including my mother, who had never acclimatised to the cold in Germany, let alone in northern England, and who suffered tremendously with asthma and recurring chest infections for all of her young life.

The Power family disintegrated upon its proverbial ‘return’, in terms both material and emotional, and much of the bitterness remains. But so too do conflicting memories: of places and identities which were never truly theirs, but also of knowledge and experiences which unquestionably were.

At seven years old, I remember my abject confusion when my Year Two teacher suggested I was using a nonsense word when I said that we had eaten ‘kedgeree’ for dinner the night before: apparently an Anglo-Indian dish which I had no idea was anything out of the ordinary in most British households. My Mum was perhaps sixteen when she was startled to hear her father argue with a local shopkeeper in fluent Urdu for some unpleasant remark he had made about the two of them, over a quarter of a century since he would last have used it.

There is great uneasiness in this story, as in all stories of the passengers, pioneers, and servants of empire. Yet it is a story that I have felt for a long time it is necessary for me to write down, if not for mere posterity’s sake, then at least for the sake of its essential humanity.

I am glad that I have now had a good reason to do so.